[Fresco-devel] Re: ACE

> your arguments are all about something we don't even do.

Right, they're about something which almost nobody does,
because it's too messy.  Well put.

> I'll give you a different scenario:
> think MegaCorp really likes the ideas of Fresco and
> starts working on it
> so they modify their version of fresco
> it's API incompatible with our fresco.
> that's perfectly legal with wxwin license, but not with
> lgpl.

Since MegaCorp hides their source, who cares about their incompatible
API?

This API question only becomes a problem if MegaCorp
contributes code.  And you can always reject their contributions.

MegaCorp could launch a competing open source project under their API,
but then -- so could any group of purist GPL die-hards interested in
doing that.  It's not just commercial interests that can throw a
monkey wrench into the works.

So I don't see that you've made any coherent argument against the
actions of MegaCorp.

I like that name, "MegaCorp" -- nice and evil.  Most programmers
in fact work for commercial companies.  I know very few working for
non-profit organizations. :-)  I imagine that some of them work for
NiceCorp and others for FriendlyCorp.  :-)

If API compatibility is a concern, then look at the SISSL
from Sun (it covers OpenOffice and talks about API issues).

The license experts themselves deprecate LGPL.  Take up the cudgels
with them.....

Mark

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/Licensing-HOWTO.html#LGPL

"OSI does not recommend the LGPL. The Free Software Foundation has
itself deprecated this license. Also, OSI believes that the degree of
uncertainty about what kinds of linkage to libraries creates a
derivative work has undersirable [sic] effects, and recommends only
non-copyleft licenses as besrt practuce [sic] for libraries."